You'd be surprised at some of the stories I've gooten when contacting manufacturers about problems with guns we have for review ...

It certainly gives pause. If they treat someone who is going to write about their product that cavalierly, I pity anyone who might buy a gun from certain manufacturers.

Really? I have missed that in the gun reviews. I have seen gun reviews that sing the praise of wonderful CS, but not how they were jerked around knowing it was a gun reviewer. I would like to see some of those articles where the reviewers shared this with the readers.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

DPris, you misunderstood. We aren't talking about just obtaining a sample. We are talking about returning a defective gun.

The review isn't just about the gun if the gun doesn't work. It is about how the company will make things right so that the defective gun will no longer be defective. Just like so many gun reviews fail to note problems, they apparently are failing to note problems and followup CS problems in resolving issues.

When you buy a new gun, it usually comes with a warranty. It is part of the gun until which time it expires. So if the reviewers have to return a gun for service, that is very salient information. If a gun company is going to give a hard time to the reviewers of a gun rag that they know are reviewing one of their guns for publication, then they can't be counted on to treat Joe Public much better if Joe Public has a problem with one of their guns under warranty.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

I used to subscribe to at least a dozen gun and outdoor magazines, probably more but I am down to Gun Tests. Not because everything they say is gospel but because they say what they feel like saying based on their own personal tests and not because the manufacturer sent them on an all expense paid hunt in South America or an African Safari to write a puff piece about the newest and greatest (scope, gun, ammo, coat, boots)....pick one. If a customer disagrees they print the letter. I like that.

__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--

Among the six or seven forums I frequent I'll see one guy post about how great Company X treated him with customer service problems, and in another post I'll see another guy post about horrific treatment by the same company's CS.

The writers are not all that knowledgeable, and their conclusions ultimately are based more on their biases and prejudices than on the factual results of their testing. It's not unusual to read the final recommendation and wonder who the heck they reached that conclusion based on the facts they presented.

I approve of the above message.

I also approve of Double Naught Spy's first post in this thread.

I used to subscribe to Gun Tests over ten years ago, but gave up on them. Their comparisons were superficial, ignored the design or material (composition) issue and concentrated on the cosmetics of the guns reviewed. Asking the members of TFL has been more productive.

The writers are not all that knowledgeable, and their conclusions ultimately are based more on their biases and prejudices than on the factual results of their testing. It's not unusual to read the final recommendation and wonder who the heck they reached that conclusion based on the facts they presented.

This is the best summary of what Gun Tests articles are like.

I would take it farther than this though and say the ignorance often shows in groupings. . .like, it seems not to far fetched that the would compare an Ed Brown 1911, a Llama and a Colt DA 1911 in a 1911 comparison. Then, to make matters worse, the Colt DA would win because it had some inherent safety because it is a DA.

I currently have a subscription. I can't say I always agree with all of their conclusions, but at least the facts are there. It's very seldom you hear a critical review of any gun in most of the magazines out there.

I find it entertaining to read, much more so than American Rifleman, recently. NRA is always begging for money and talking politics...eleven articles in my current mag and three are political. I'd rather get eight articles and zero politics...save the political rants for American's First Freedom magazine.

I used to receive a free subscription to Gun Test. I quit reading them after about 6 issues, and ignored their mailings asking me to purchase a subscription.

As has been noted, their writers were (haven't read an issue in a couple of years) notably inexperienced. They often wrote about the "feel" of a gun, based on having allowed "people at the range" to hold and/or shoot the gun.

My biggest criticism deals with their inappropriate test criteria. They would test several "self defense" handguns, and invariably proceed to pontificate about the results of accuracy tests. (I'm of the opinion that virtually every pistol selling for $500 or more will deliver accuracy that is more than adequate for self defense use).

But they never attempted to test reliability. Worse than that, they would gloss over any jams, FTF's, FTE's etc that occurred during their "tests." They would report that "Except for a few instances where the gun failed eject the empty cases, the gun was virtually flawless."

Tests of sporting shotguns seemed to hinge on whether or not the author thought the gun was "properly balanced" -- along with comparisons of the lines per inch checkering on various makes and models.

I think the content was 60% garbage, and about 20% personal preference.

I used to subscribe, now I think I am much better served by reading reviews on the net. On the net, yes I know there will be some worthless info, I hear about more than 1 sample. If they get 1 bad sample, they extrapolate that over all of that model, which I don't support.

I have no idea if this magazine is good or not. What I do know is I never ordered it but they started billing/demanding $20 for a years subscription, basically trying to fool me into paying. After 2 bills another bill comes in the form of a collection agency wanting me to pay up. Opened a complaint with the Fed Trade Commission, will see where that goes.

Subscribers Only — While the debate continues on about which firearm is the best combat handgun, the 1911 remains in the running, and, according to some, it stays at the top of the heap. The 1911 has many applications including target practice, competition, and self defense, of course. Simple pride of ownership is never a bad reason to own a handgun, but personal defense remains the defining characteristic of the 1911 handgun. For many, the 1911 represents the best choice for repelling boarders or facing members of the criminal class. For this task, the pistol has good features, including speed to an accurate first shot that is virtually unequaled, reliability, and accuracy. Also, the 1911 is thin enough for concealed carry. The problem is a full-size gun’s profile and weight. The 1911 can be concealed effectively with proper holster selection, that isn’t the question. The question is the comfort level the individual is willing to accept. For many of us, the steel-frame Commander with its ¾-inch-shorter slide and barrel solves the problem. The Commander pistol is less likely to pinch the bottom when seated, and it is faster from the draw as well. Reader Steven Mace of Arizona wrote us in April 2014 asking if we would consider testing a list of 1911A1 Commander-style pistols. He wrote, “If you or your staff has any experience with any of these pistols, I would appreciate any information that could be shared. Or, are there any plans to evaluate any of these pistols in the near future? My intent is to find and buy a 1911A1 for concealed carry for a person who is left-handed.” His included list of desired handguns from top to bottom were the Colt XSE O4012XSE, Kimber Pro Raptor II 3200118, Para USA Black Ops Recon 96697, Remington 1911 R1 Carry Commander 96335, Sig Sauer 1911 Carry Scorpion 1911CAR-45-SCPN, Smith & Wesson SW1911SC 108483, and Springfield Armory Lightweight Champion Operator PX9115LP (September 2012, Grade A-). We evaluated a Kimber Tactical Pro II (Grade A) and a Carry Scorpion (Grade B+) in the October 2014 issue, and further honoring his request, in this installment we test the Colt XSE Commander and the Remington R1 Commander. Some guns of this size or smaller that we’ve tested include the SIG Sauer 1911 C3 1911CO-45-T-C3 (Grade A) and the Rock Island Armory Tactical II Compact 51479 (Grade B) in the July 2014 issue; the Dan Wesson ECO 01969 45 ACP (Grade B+) in the September 2012 issue; the SIG Sauer 1911 C3 NO. 19GS0031 (Grade A) and the Kimber Compact Stainless II 45 ACP (Grade A-) in the August 2010 issue; the Kimber SIS Ultra (Grade B+) and Springfield Armory Loaded Ultra Compact PX9161LP (Grade B-) in the August 2008 issue; and the Smith & Wesson M457 No. 104804 (Grade B) in the September 2007 issue, among others further back. The Colt is the top-of-the-line Commander and the Remington is a less expensive R1, which actually favored the R1 when we started because we prefer less expensive products, if they perform on par with more expensive ones. We felt the comparison was valid based upon quality, accuracy and reliability, so here’s what we found. More..."

At first glance it seems they write about 9mm's and AR's. I am not interested in them.

Novel and good idea BEFORE the internet and a hundred free forums like this one, where you can get feedback and dialogue from many owners. Now, not so much.

I kept the mags, and sometimes have looked back at a particular article, but frankly it's much more fun and easy to have a free dialogue with owners on the internet. You can post polls, get specific actual user feedback, watch Youtube videos, etc. I find this much more useful and free versus a magazine that loses relevance over time.

Also, I'm not sure how "unbiased" they are and their information was often wrong, irrelevant (posting MSRP is useless, for instance), or just their opinion; much because they are only testing 1 gun, which is far from fair or representative of that particular brand or model. For instance, I recall strongly disagreeing with their conclusions on a number of models that I had personal experience with.

Given all of the above, I found the $15 (or whatever the cost) per year subscription money poorly spent and better allocated.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.